cdelgado wrote:I am terrible at criminal law. I have an accomplice liability question.

Let's say this is the situation: I encourage X to murder Y and I also provide Y the gun to do so. We then travel together to Y's house to murder him. When we get to Y's house, Y isn't there. Instead, Z is there, who also lives with Y. X decides to kill Z instead, because he was enraged that Y wasn't at the house. I was waiting in the car this entire time, but when X returns to the car, I drive away.

X is found guilty of murder in the first degree against Z. Can I be found guilty as an accomplice to that aggravated murder against Z, even though my only intent was for Y to be killed?

I think for accomplice liability it's foreseeability. I think you could argue that it's foreseeable that someone else would be murdered other than Y?

Wouldn't it be intent to commit the crime rather than foreseeability of the result?

If I understand accomplice liability, the accomplice is liable for the crime that he gave assistance or aid in and any other foreseeable crimes that occur, as long as specifically intended that the crime he was helping in would be committed. Is this right?

Quick Conlaw question here. Say your'e trying to strike down some state law that has some 6 month durational residency requirement in order to get some state benefits. I always get confused whether to use Due Process Clause, Equal Protection, or Privileges and Immunities? I would think right to travel Due Process CLause... but some multiple choice answer said Equal Protection.

cdelgado wrote:I am terrible at criminal law. I have an accomplice liability question.

Let's say this is the situation: I encourage X to murder Y and I also provide Y the gun to do so. We then travel together to Y's house to murder him. When we get to Y's house, Y isn't there. Instead, Z is there, who also lives with Y. X decides to kill Z instead, because he was enraged that Y wasn't at the house. I was waiting in the car this entire time, but when X returns to the car, I drive away.

X is found guilty of murder in the first degree against Z. Can I be found guilty as an accomplice to that aggravated murder against Z, even though my only intent was for Y to be killed?

I think for accomplice liability it's foreseeability. I think you could argue that it's foreseeable that someone else would be murdered other than Y?

Wouldn't it be intent to commit the crime rather than foreseeability of the result?

Wouldn't transferred intent apply?

I would think so. But I don't think transferred intent requires foreseeability though.

Really don't want to beat a dead horse, I think it's just felony murder (with the burglary being the underlying felony) with an accomplice. I've never heard of a situation like this with transferred intent being used when another person is the one doing the act. Was this an MPQ or essay question, or just a hypo you thought of?

Thanks everyone for your input on this.

It was a state specific essay question that wanted to know if accomplice liability could be imposed in that situation.

smokeylarue wrote:Quick Conlaw question here. Say your'e trying to strike down some state law that has some 6 month durational residency requirement in order to get some state benefits. I always get confused whether to use Due Process Clause, Equal Protection, or Privileges and Immunities? I would think right to travel Due Process CLause... but some multiple choice answer said Equal Protection.

Due Process -- Are they taking life/liberty/property without a hearing?

Equal Protection -- Are they treating some people differently than other people?

Right to travel should make you think P&I. Durational residency requirements aren't differentiating between in-staters and out-of-staters, though; they're distinguishing between in-staters based on how long they've been in-staters. Thus, equal protection controls.

Needing a little confidence here. My dad was diagnosed with Stage 4 cancer like 3-4 weeks ago. I took 2 days off to just get my mind right, and have been studying ever since. Constantly testing between 65-70% of MBE, am confident with 3/4 of the essays. The P&E I would say maybe 12-15 right. The MPT is a freaking toss up. I'm in Texas. Maybe some ancedotal stories...I doubt there will be any, but I just want to make sure I'm looking good to pass.

thewaterlanding wrote:Needing a little confidence here. My dad was diagnosed with Stage 4 cancer like 3-4 weeks ago. I took 2 days off to just get my mind right, and have been studying ever since. Constantly testing between 65-70% of MBE, am confident with 3/4 of the essays. The P&E I would say maybe 12-15 right. The MPT is a freaking toss up. I'm in Texas. Maybe some ancedotal stories...I doubt there will be any, but I just want to make sure I'm looking good to pass.

Thanks in advance guys and gals.

First off, sorry to hear about the situation. I've got some similar issues going on in my family, so I know how distracted you probably are.

That said, it seems like you'll be fine. 70% on MBE practice questions is good, and if you're confident on 3/4 of the essays you're in a better place than I am. MPTs are a toss-up; I'm in CA and the CPT seems like something you can't really practice for (maybe to get timing and such, but you're either good at synthesizing and applying or you're not).

smokeylarue wrote:Quick Conlaw question here. Say your'e trying to strike down some state law that has some 6 month durational residency requirement in order to get some state benefits. I always get confused whether to use Due Process Clause, Equal Protection, or Privileges and Immunities? I would think right to travel Due Process CLause... but some multiple choice answer said Equal Protection.

Due Process -- Are they taking life/liberty/property without a hearing?

Equal Protection -- Are they treating some people differently than other people?

Right to travel should make you think P&I. Durational residency requirements aren't differentiating between in-staters and out-of-staters, though; they're distinguishing between in-staters based on how long they've been in-staters. Thus, equal protection controls.

smokeylarue wrote:Quick Conlaw question here. Say your'e trying to strike down some state law that has some 6 month durational residency requirement in order to get some state benefits. I always get confused whether to use Due Process Clause, Equal Protection, or Privileges and Immunities? I would think right to travel Due Process CLause... but some multiple choice answer said Equal Protection.

Due Process -- Are they taking life/liberty/property without a hearing?

Equal Protection -- Are they treating some people differently than other people?

Right to travel should make you think P&I. Durational residency requirements aren't differentiating between in-staters and out-of-staters, though; they're distinguishing between in-staters based on how long they've been in-staters. Thus, equal protection controls.

You da man

Happy to help. Explaining the law helps me make sure I understand it myself.

smokeylarue wrote:Quick Conlaw question here. Say your'e trying to strike down some state law that has some 6 month durational residency requirement in order to get some state benefits. I always get confused whether to use Due Process Clause, Equal Protection, or Privileges and Immunities? I would think right to travel Due Process CLause... but some multiple choice answer said Equal Protection.

Due Process -- Are they taking life/liberty/property without a hearing?

Equal Protection -- Are they treating some people differently than other people?

Right to travel should make you think P&I. Durational residency requirements aren't differentiating between in-staters and out-of-staters, though; they're distinguishing between in-staters based on how long they've been in-staters. Thus, equal protection controls.

You da man

Happy to help. Explaining the law helps me make sure I understand it myself.

Aren't certain residency duration requirements evaluated under the P or I clause? But that's supposedly never the answer.

smokeylarue wrote:Quick Conlaw question here. Say your'e trying to strike down some state law that has some 6 month durational residency requirement in order to get some state benefits. I always get confused whether to use Due Process Clause, Equal Protection, or Privileges and Immunities? I would think right to travel Due Process CLause... but some multiple choice answer said Equal Protection.

Due Process -- Are they taking life/liberty/property without a hearing?

Equal Protection -- Are they treating some people differently than other people?

Right to travel should make you think P&I. Durational residency requirements aren't differentiating between in-staters and out-of-staters, though; they're distinguishing between in-staters based on how long they've been in-staters. Thus, equal protection controls.

You da man

Happy to help. Explaining the law helps me make sure I understand it myself.

Aren't certain residency duration requirements evaluated under the P or I clause? But that's supposedly never the answer.

Generally, no. You can try to get there by arguing that it interferes with the right to travel, but that's best left to a law school con law exam and not the Bar. On the Bar, just do equal protection if you see a state government treating residents differently based on how long they've been residents.

smokeylarue wrote:Quick Conlaw question here. Say your'e trying to strike down some state law that has some 6 month durational residency requirement in order to get some state benefits. I always get confused whether to use Due Process Clause, Equal Protection, or Privileges and Immunities? I would think right to travel Due Process CLause... but some multiple choice answer said Equal Protection.

Due Process -- Are they taking life/liberty/property without a hearing?

Equal Protection -- Are they treating some people differently than other people?

Right to travel should make you think P&I. Durational residency requirements aren't differentiating between in-staters and out-of-staters, though; they're distinguishing between in-staters based on how long they've been in-staters. Thus, equal protection controls.

You da man

Happy to help. Explaining the law helps me make sure I understand it myself.

Durational residency requirement throw me for a loop sometimes as well. According to law.justia, the court has approved both forms of analysis. Assuming this case is still good law (not going to shep it) it looks like arguments can be made under either. Quoted source below:

"Durational Residency Requirements.—Challenges to durational residency requirements have traditionally been made under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In 1999, however, a majority of the Supreme Court approved a doctrinal shift, so that state laws which distinguished between their own citizens based on how long they had been in the state would be evaluated instead under the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court did not, however, question the continuing efficacy of the earlier cases."

rhs100 wrote:Just did Emanuel's A.M. and got 68/100. Honestly was expecting better. 128/200 on simulated. Not really sure what else to do to improve - I feel like on the real one performance will be worse due to anxiety.

What do you guys think?

I did the Emanuel's A.M. today too and got almost exactly the same number (69/100). I'm at a bit of a loss, because I expected a bit better too. Seemed like the questions had a different feel than Barbri's, so my hope is that I just needed to adjust, and that I'll do better on the P.M. later this week.

Best I can tell, the best thing to do is just review the ones you got wrong and move on. Realistically, 68% is going to pass in most (if not all) states.

Thanks, that's assuring. Yeah the format was a little uncomfortable at times, and these are the actual questions! Did you find it particularly true for Evidence? Because I thought there were Evidence questions Barbri didn't cover (at least not in lecture).

smokeylarue wrote:Quick Conlaw question here. Say your'e trying to strike down some state law that has some 6 month durational residency requirement in order to get some state benefits. I always get confused whether to use Due Process Clause, Equal Protection, or Privileges and Immunities? I would think right to travel Due Process CLause... but some multiple choice answer said Equal Protection.

Due Process -- Are they taking life/liberty/property without a hearing?

Equal Protection -- Are they treating some people differently than other people?

Right to travel should make you think P&I. Durational residency requirements aren't differentiating between in-staters and out-of-staters, though; they're distinguishing between in-staters based on how long they've been in-staters. Thus, equal protection controls.

You da man

Happy to help. Explaining the law helps me make sure I understand it myself.

Aren't certain residency duration requirements evaluated under the P or I clause? But that's supposedly never the answer.

Yeah. Pretty sure the only time the Court has used the 14th Amendment P&I Clause since the Slaughterhouse Cases was with a durational residency requirement. Actually, the Court didn't specifically talk about the P&I Clause. It just said the right to interstate travel is a fundamental right. So, it's probably best to use Equal Protection, but it would get strict scrutiny because it's distinguishing between classes of people with respect to a fundamental right.

Last edited by musicfor18 on Tue Jul 21, 2015 9:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.

rhs100 wrote:Just did Emanuel's A.M. and got 68/100. Honestly was expecting better. 128/200 on simulated. Not really sure what else to do to improve - I feel like on the real one performance will be worse due to anxiety.

What do you guys think?

I did the Emanuel's A.M. today too and got almost exactly the same number (69/100). I'm at a bit of a loss, because I expected a bit better too. Seemed like the questions had a different feel than Barbri's, so my hope is that I just needed to adjust, and that I'll do better on the P.M. later this week.

Best I can tell, the best thing to do is just review the ones you got wrong and move on. Realistically, 68% is going to pass in most (if not all) states.

Thanks, that's assuring. Yeah the format was a little uncomfortable at times, and these are the actual questions! Did you find it particularly true for Evidence? Because I thought there were Evidence questions Barbri didn't cover (at least not in lecture).

rhs100 wrote:Just did Emanuel's A.M. and got 68/100. Honestly was expecting better. 128/200 on simulated. Not really sure what else to do to improve - I feel like on the real one performance will be worse due to anxiety.

What do you guys think?

I did the Emanuel's A.M. today too and got almost exactly the same number (69/100). I'm at a bit of a loss, because I expected a bit better too. Seemed like the questions had a different feel than Barbri's, so my hope is that I just needed to adjust, and that I'll do better on the P.M. later this week.

Best I can tell, the best thing to do is just review the ones you got wrong and move on. Realistically, 68% is going to pass in most (if not all) states.

Thanks, that's assuring. Yeah the format was a little uncomfortable at times, and these are the actual questions! Did you find it particularly true for Evidence? Because I thought there were Evidence questions Barbri didn't cover (at least not in lecture).

I haven't gone through to figure out which ones I missed, but I felt particularly uncomfortable on evidence and con law, which is weird because I'm usually pretty confident on those subjects. Hoping that most of the ones I missed were just variations on things I know so that I'll be ready come test time.

Did you find that these questions took more time than Barbri? It may be exhaustion kicking in, but it took me about 15 minutes longer to do these 100 questions than it has for the barbri ones I've done.